Geoff Arnold wrote:
>
>...
>
> Never mind. I sympathize with the impulse to define web services in
> terms of
> technology.
It is not my wish to do so. It is merely a reaction to the demonstrated
fact that nobody has yet defined the scope of the problem. Therefore if
I do so (saying, for instance that REST is great for e-business) then
within three emails I am sure I will have that thrown back in my face:
"Sure, REST is great for e-business, but web services are for
application integration."
> ... After all, a few weeks ago I proposed a definition which
> has led to a fair amount of positive feedback:
>
> Definition: A Web service is a software application identified by a
> URI, whose interfaces and bindings are defined in terms of XML
> based
> messages transported by internet protocols. This definition,
> which is
> described using XML artifacts, can be discovered by other software
> applications, which may then interact with the web service in
> a manner prescribed by its definition.
>
> The only technologies prescribed here are XML, URIs, and internet
> protocols,
> and in fact nothing precludes the use of other encodings, naming
> schemes,
> and protocols as part of the service interaction.
Let's see whether this definition is really technology neutral. I'll
strip out the references to particular technologies:
> Definition: A service is a software application identified by an
> address, whose interfaces and bindings are defined in terms of
> messages transported by protocols. This definition, which is
> described using artifacts, can be discovered by other software
> applications, which may then interact with the service in
> a manner prescribed by its definition.
This sounds similar to a hundred technologies that have preceded,
including DCOM, CORBA, ...
--
XML, Web Services Architecture, REST Architectural Style
Consulting, training, programming: http://www.constantrevolution.com
Come discuss XML and REST web services at the Extreme Markup Conference